What happens to race in public discussions about “race-neutral” college admissions policies? This article shows how race disappeared from elite political debate during hearings on Texas Senate Bill 175 (2009), the Top Ten Percent Plan (the Plan), which guaranteed college admissions to high school graduates from the top 10% of their classes. Findings indicated that race disappeared from the discussion of college admissions policy in Texas. Instead, policy makers emphasized students’ opportunity to compete for college admissions ignoring that the opportunities for and impediments to success at different high schools varied widely across the state. The implication of these findings is that as policy becomes race neutral, discourse also becomes “colorblind” potentially disguising structural and secondary school inequalities.
AlonS.TiendaM. (2007). Diversity, opportunity, and the shifting meritocracy in higher education. The American Sociological Reviews, 72(4), 487-511.
2.
AndersonJ. (1988). The education of Blacks in the south, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
3.
AndersonJ. (1993). Race, meritocracy, and the American academy during the immediate post-World War II era. History of Education Society, 33(2), 151-175.
4.
AndersonJ. (2002). Race in American higher education: Historical perspectives on current conditions. In SmithW.AltbachP.LomoteyK. (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education (pp. 3-22). Albany: State University of New York Press.
5.
AttewellP. (2001). The winner-take-all high school: Organizational adaptations to educational stratification. Sociology of Education, 74, 267-295.
6.
BaezB. (2006). Merit and difference. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 996-1016.
7.
BellD. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518-533.
8.
BellD. (2004). Silent covenants. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
BowenW. G.BokD. (1998). The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BrownM.CarnoyM.CurrieE.DusterT.OppenheimerD.ShultzM.WellmanD. (2003). Whitewashing race: The myth of a color-blind society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
BruijnJ. D.CybaE. (Eds.). (1994). Gender and organizations—changing perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University Press.
13.
CardD.KruegerA. B. (2005). Would the elimination of affirmative action affect highly qualified minority applicants? Evidence from California and Texas. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58, 416-434.
14.
CarspeckenP. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
ChangM.WittD.JonesJ.HakutaK. (2003). Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford Education.
16.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
CrouseJ.TrusheimD. (1988). The case against the SAT. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
DelgadoR.StefanicJ. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
20.
DowneyD. B.von HippelP. T.HughesM. (2008). Are “failing” schools really failing? Using season comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81(3), 242-270.
21.
FaircloughN. (2003). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (Original work published 1992)
22.
FaircloughN. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. (Original work published 1995)
FeaginJ. R. (2006). Systematic racism: A theory of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
FinnellS. (1998). The Hopwood chill: How the court derailed diversity efforts at Texas A&M. In OrfieldG.MillerE. (Eds.), Chilling admissions: The affirmative action crisis and the search for alternatives (pp. 71-82). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
26.
GamoranA. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable?Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.
27.
Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003). U.S. Supreme Court. Case number 539 U.S. 306, decided June23, 2003.
GurinP.LehmanJ.LewisE. (2004). Defending diversity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
31.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functional reason (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
32.
HarrisA.TiendaM. (2010). Minority higher education pipeline: Consequences of changes in college admissions policy in Texas. The ANNALS of the Academy of Policy and Social Science, 672(1), 60-81.
33.
Hopwood v. Texas. (1996). U.S. Court of Appeals. Case Number 94-50569, decided March18, 1996.
HurtadoA. (2005). Toward a more equitable society: Moving forward in the struggle for affirmative action. The Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 273-284.
36.
KahlenbergR. D. (1997). The remedy: Class, race, and affirmative action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
37.
KainJ. F.O’BrienD. M. (2004). Hopwood and the top 10 percent law: How they have affected the college enrollment decisions of Texas high school graduates. Dallas: Texas School Project, the University of Texas–Dallas.
38.
KarabelJ. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
39.
KillgoreL. (2009). Merit and competition in selective college admissions. The Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 469-488.
40.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. F.IV (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
41.
LawrenceC. R. (2001). Two views of the river: A critique of the liberal defense of affirmative action. Columbia Law Review, 101(4), 928-976.
42.
LemannN. (1999). The big test. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
LewisE. (2004). Why history remains a factor in the search for racial equality. In GurinP.LehmanJ.LewisE. (Eds.), Defending diversity: Affirmative action at the University of Michigan (pp. 17-59). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45.
LongM. C. (2004a). College applications and the effect of affirmative actions. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 319-342.
46.
LongM. C. (2004b). Race and college admissions: An alternative to affirmative action?The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 1020-1033. doi:10.1162/0034653043125211
47.
LongM. C. (2007), Affirmative action and its alternatives in public universities: What do we know?Public Administration Review, 67, 315-330.
48.
LongM. C.SaenzV.TiendaM. (2006). Policy transparency and college enrollment: Did the Texas Top Ten Percent Law broaden access to the public flagships?Economics of Education Reviews, 25(1), 109-119.
49.
LongM. C.TiendaM. (2008). Winners and losers: Changes in Texas university admissions post-Hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 255-280
MiguelG. S.ValenciaR. (1998). From the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Hopwood: The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the southwest. Harvard Educational Review, 68(3), 353-412.
52.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
NeumannA. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
OliverM.ShpairoT. (2006). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
OrentlicherD. (1998-1999). Affirmative action and Texas’ Ten percent solution: Improving diversity and quality. Notre Dame Law Review, 181(74), 181-210.
56.
OrfieldG.MarinP.HornC. L. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education and the color line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
57.
OrfieldG.MillerE. (Eds.). (1998). Chilling admissions: The affirmation action crisis and the search for alternatives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
58.
OrtloffD. H. (2006). Becoming European: A framing analysis of three countries’ civics education curricula. European Education, 37(4), 35-49.
59.
PallaisA.TurnerS. E. (2007). Access to elites. In Dickert-ConlinS.RubensteinR. (Eds.), Economic inequality and higher education (pp. 128-156). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
60.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
61.
PersellC. H.CooksonP. W. (1985). Chartering and bartering: Elite education and social reproduction. Social Problems, 33, 114-129.
62.
PollockM. (2004). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
ReisiglM.WodakR. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-Semitism. New York, NY: Routledge.
64.
SchmidtP. (2007). Color and money: How right White kids are winning the war over college affirmative action. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
65.
ShapiroT. M. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66.
SolorzanoM.CejaM.YossoT. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microagressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.
67.
SturmS.GuinierL. (1996). The future of affirmative action: Reclaiming the innovative ideal. California Law Review, 84(4), 953-1036.
ThompsonJ. P.TobiasS. (2000). The Texas Ten Percent Plan. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(7), 1121-1138.
71.
TiendaM.NiuS. X. (2006a). Capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: College admissions and the Texas Top 10% law. American Law Economics Review, 8(2), 312-346. doi:10.1093/aler/ahl006
72.
TiendaM.NiuS. X. (2006b). Flagships, feeders, and the Texas Top 10% law: A test of the “brain drain” hypothesis. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 712-739.
73.
TiendaM.LeichtK. T.SullivanT.MalteseM.LloydK. (2003). Closing the gap? Admissions and enrollments at the Texas public flagships before and after affirmative action. Princeton, NJ: Texas Top 10% Project.
74.
TiendaM.SullivanT. A. (2010). The promise and peril of the Texas Uniform Admission Law. In FeathermanD. L.HallM.KrislovM. (Eds.), The next twenty-five years: Affirmative action anSd higher education in the United States and South Africa (pp. 155-174). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
75.
TierneyW. (2007). Merit and affirmative action in education: Promulgating a democratic public culture. Urban Education, 42(5), 385-402.
76.
WrightB. (1991). The untamable savage spirit: American Indians in colonial colleagues. The Review of Higher Education, 4(4), 429-452.
77.
YinR. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
